Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Following the publication of the 2002 census of population figures in July 2002, a constituency commission was established under Part II of the Electoral Act 1997 to make a report on the constituencies for the election of Members to the Dáil and European Parliament. To facilitate the holding of the European Parliament election next June, the commission dealt with European elections first and submitted its report on the European constituencies last October. As Deputies are aware, the commission recently furnished its report on Dáil constituencies and the consequential legislation will be before the House for debate later this year.

Three commissions have dealt with European constituencies in reports published in 1977, 1993 and 1998, respectively. The 1977 commission recommended that the representation of 15 MEPs be distributed as follows: three seats in Connacht-Ulster; four seats in Dublin; three seats in Leinster; and five seats in Munster. The 1993 commission recommended the transfer of a seat from the Munster to the Leinster constituency, while the report of the 1998 commission did not recommend any change in the formation of the four constituencies or the number of members to be elected in them.

There has, therefore, been no change in the constituencies or the number of members elected from them since the European Parliament elections in 1994. However, the protocol on the enlargement of the European Union and the declaration on the enlargement of the European Union in the Treaty of Nice provide that, in a European Union of 27 member states, Ireland will elect 12 MEPs.

The protocol made provision for the possibility that there may be fewer than 27 member states in the European Union in 2004 and allowed for a pro rata distribution of unallocated seats. As neither Bulgaria nor Romania will accede to the European Union in time for the 2004 European Parliament elections, it was decided to allocate their seats to the current member states and those candidate states which will accede in 2004. The European Council in Copenhagen in December 2002 confirmed that Ireland will elect 13 MEPs in the 2004 European Parliament elections. The formal legal basis for this level of representation is the accession treaty signed on 16 April 2003. Ireland's representation in the European Parliament was, therefore, reduced from its current level of 15 seats to 13 seats at the 2004 elections.

Apart from the limitation to 13 seats, the commission's terms of reference for the European constituencies were as follows: there shall be reasonable equality of representation as between constituencies; each constituency shall return three, four or five members; the breaching of county boundaries shall be avoided as far as practicable; each constituency shall be composed of contiguous areas; there shall be regard to geographic considerations, including significant physical features and the extent and density of population in each constituency; and, subject to these provisions, the Commission shall endeavour to maintain continuity with regard to the arrangement of constituencies.

The commission's role is advisory. The final determination of the constituencies for the European Parliament is a matter for the Oireachtas to prescribe in legislation. The Government accepted the commission's recommendations on the European Parliament constituencies.

Section 4 implements the recommendations of the constituency commission on the European Parliament constituencies. The changes involve a reduction of two seats in Irish representation from the 2004 elections and a reduction of one seat in each of the Leinster and Munster constituencies. County Clare is transferred from the Munster constituency to the Connacht-UIster constituency and no changes are made in the formation or numbers of members to be elected in the Dublin constituency. The names of the three other constituencies are changed to east, north-west and south.

Elections to the European Parliament are governed by the European Parliament Elections Acts 1992 to 2002, which provide for elections on the single transferable vote system in multi-member constituencies. The provision concerning the revision of constituencies is set out in section 15(2) of the European Parliament Elections Act 1997, which states: ". . . the Minister shall, having considered any report presented on statutory authority to each House of the Oireachtas recommending any alteration in the constituencies for which candidates shall be elected to the Parliament, and not later than the first day of December 2003 and at least once in every ten years thereafter, submit to the Oireachtas proposals for a review of the said constituencies."

If there is no major change in population before the 2009 elections, the European constituencies will require revision if Romania and Bulgaria join the European Union. In such circumstances, Irish representation will be reduced to 12 members. Section 6 of the Bill is a standard provision setting out the Short Title, collective citation and constitution of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to speak on the Bill because the ongoing guillotining of Bills is making it increasingly difficult for the Opposition to speak on anything the Government does. The Bill allows for the changes to the European election constituencies to be ratified. I fully accept the findings of the commission and fully support the elimination of the dual mandate with regard to membership of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. My party looks forward to the elections and the success it will achieve in them.

The Fine Gael Party does not, however, look forward to the roll-out of an ill-planned, ill-judged and haphazard electronic voting procedure on which the Government has refused to listen to advice, seek Opposition support or give ground. As this is the first time we will use electronic voting for a European election, it is important we get it right, whereas the Government's approach to this issue has been completely wrong. The matter would be more appropriately addressed by an electoral commission. The same scrutiny of the system should also have taken place with regard to the local elections, on which the required full consultation did not take place. I am totally opposed to the jackboot manner in which electronic voting is being introduced, despite the many important questions raised.

In December 2002 we discovered that the Minister had in his possession for a considerable period, a report compiled by Zerflow Holdings which stated that the system was not tamper-proof. The Minister did not publish the report, even when the public was casting its votes in the general election. At the time, I stated that fair elections are the cornerstone of democracy and any security issues surrounding the voting process should be addressed as a priority. The Government has failed to do this.

Last May, it was revealed that the system would come with a price tag of at least €35 million, a figure that, I am informed, has since increased.

This side of the House has highlighted the myriad other social problems faced by the country and upon which money would be better spent, but there was no response from the Government. At the time I compared it to a person on a low income attempting to buy a Mercedes when there are other priorities in the household.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has expressed concerns about the system of electronic voting. He has stated that the importance of ensuring the integrity of the voting system dictates that the machines and their operating software should be subjected to the most rigorous and comprehensive testing regime. He stated political and other considerations would suggest a strong case for independent validation of such testing before the machines are brought into use at elections.

I was not in the least surprised to see Mr. Purcell's concerns greeted with a brick wall of arrogance by a Government and a Minister who refuse to listen to anybody on this and on many other issues. I ask the Minister to tell the House what is happening and the reason for the headlong rush into the introduction of a system over which there are so many question marks. This issue was debated in the House and in the Oireachtas committee. The PR company charged with managing this mess is Q4 which is partly owned by a former Fianna Fáil general secretary and a former adviser to the Taoiseach.

Even at this late stage, will the Minister concede that this matter has been handled in an appalling manner? Will he concede that the bad handling of changes in the voting system is one of the more serious bungles of this Government? This is the very mechanism charged with electing Governments in the first place. It is a sad observation but this Government has become completely oblivious to what is happening around it. At every turn it has chosen itself over the people, chosen advisers over good advice and chosen party interests over the public interest.

It has effectively neutered local government through the Protection of the Environment Act which gives powers to county and city managers to set refuse charges. Councillors may object but if they go so far as to vote against them they will lose their jobs. The Freedom of Information Act still exists in theory but Sherlock Holmes would be hard pressed to find a link between the spirit of the initial Act and what is now on the Statute Book. The Government now rides roughshod over this House and over the concerns of experts in the field, insisting there will be electronic voting this June. This is another reason, electronic voting booth or not, this Government will get very little award on 11 June.

There is an issue which is fundamental to Irish democracy and answers to questions of security and transparency of the system have not been answered. To my knowledge, between 30 and 40 questions put to departmental officials by experts at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government in recent weeks have not been answered. The committee was given very little opportunity to hear answers from the Department's officials because within a matter of hours, the Government members pushed through a recommendation that the voting system be accepted by the committee. They split the committee to push through a motion that the system be accepted, despite the fact that up to 40 questions could not be answered on the day by departmental officials and I have not heard any answers since. I have the questions here and I find it incredible that the Government is rushing headlong into the system. The very principles of democracy are being undermined by the behaviour of this Government and I regard what is happening as unbelievable.

Serious flaws exist in the proposed system. It does not have an anonymous paper trail that would protect the identity of the voter and the integrity of the ballot count. The Minister has stated at a committee hearing that a paper printout would be too expensive to incorporate into the system. We were told of the unconstitutionality of the paper printout. I do not think the argument adds up. It is essential that there is a verifiable paper audit trail. The method of testing and implementation has not been good enough in this day and age when we are at the pinnacle of software development. We cannot organise proper development with a vital, rigorous scrutiny that our democracy deserves and demands.

This Bill is not going through the House with the consent of the Opposition parties. It is unthinkable to make a fundamental change in the way Irish democracy operates. The Minister has paid out tens of millions of euro for what is in my view a second-rate system. I am not satisfied it is up to the required standards demanded by our democracy.

Tomorrow the circus starts. The Minister is spending millions of euro on PR consultants. The Minister is responsible for the Fianna Fáil election campaign, therefore he has a dual role which represents a conflict of interest. The signing off by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government was merely a crack of the Government whip, not a reflection on the evidence produced at the committee which at best left a large number of fundamental questions unanswered and at worst pointed to a system that could be full of serious flaws and even open to intentional manipulation.

Is the Minister too proud or too closed of mind to admit the system is wrong? Has the final format of the system been decided upon and independently tested? I wonder how many times a mock election and count has been undertaken in the 42 constituencies. I ask the Government to freeze its plans to introduce electronic voting in the forthcoming European and local elections.

I ask the House to consider the ongoing problems in the United States with a new electronic voting system. A recent article in The Economist highlighted ongoing difficulties with touch screen electronic voting systems. Experts including computer scientists warned of the dangers of using a paperless electronic voting system which does not provide a physical record of individual votes. Dr. David Chaum has devised a voting system which produces an encrypted printout of individual votes in order to prevent coercion or gerrymandering. The voter will be provided with a receipt which can be verified in the event of a recount or any apparent irregularities. The article reports that in order to prevent someone from manipulating an election by tricking the printer, the voter can decide which of the two layers will be shredded by a poll worker and which will be the receipt to take home. The voting machine keeps an electronic copy of this receipt and then later sends it for counting and posting on the official election website. If voters cannot find their receipt there, it is evident there is something wrong with the election. The article concludes that even sophisticated systems will not improve the reliability of American elections if other problems are not solved also. However, the Government is pressing ahead with a high profile launch tomorrow of its defective electronic voting system over which there are serious question marks still hanging. The publicity alone is costing €5 million of taxpayers' money. To my knowledge, there are still 41 questions waiting to be answered about this system. Voters have a right to a paper trail but true to form, this Government has decided to ignore repeated calls for openness and transparency.

Not only have there been calls from the Opposition parties, but people like Margaret McGaley, who gave evidence to the joint committee, and other experts have said again this week that they have yet to get answers to the questions they have raised. I will attend tomorrow's launch, but I will do so to protest at the manner in which this system is being introduced.

The European Commission has a role in this regard. I intend to contact the Commission to ascertain its view on the fact that a new system of electing Members of the European Parliament is being introduced without the support of all the parties in this democratic system. As I have said, the introduction of the new system is being led by a political leader of a Department. The electoral commission or some other independent group should have managed, consulted and introduced this important change in the way we organise our elections.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to raise a number of issues which relate to the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003, which gives effect to the report of the commission that reviews the constituencies used for European elections. The Bill makes a number of other changes in the conduct of elections to the European Parliament.

I intend to address four aspects of this legislation, the first of which is the proposal to end the dual mandate whereby Members of the Oireachtas can serve simultaneously as Members of the European Parliament. The Bill's proposals in this regard are absolutely inconsistent with the legislation which was passed by the Houses to end the dual mandate at local government level. No Member of the Oireachtas will be allowed to stand for election to a local authority from 11 June next. Members of the Oireachtas will be able to stand for election to the European Parliament, however, as I believe they should. When the Local Government Bill 2003 was being debated, I argued that Members of the Oireachtas should be allowed to stand for election to local authorities before deciding on the issue of where they serve. It is utterly inconsistent, however, that a Member of the Oireachtas who is elected to the European Parliament will be allowed to continue to serve in this House until the following general election.

The provisions of this Bill will mean that the law for a Deputy or Senator who wishes to seek election to a local authority is different from that for a Deputy or Senator who wishes to seek election to the European Parliament. It seems highly absurd that, after 11 June, a Member of the Oireachtas will be able to attend week-long meetings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg or Brussels for up to three years until the next general election, but will not be able to attend a meeting in a city or town hall for a couple of hours.

The issue of consistency was addressed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when the local government legislation was being discussed on Committee Stage on 17 April 2003. I wish to remind Deputies of comments made to the select committee by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, about consistency in response to an amendment I tabled. The Minister said, "What is in the Bill is based specifically on the consistency of what is already in the legislation on those disqualifications to ensure there will not be two different types of disqualification". He went on to stress that he did "not want to create different levels between different people". His view in April of last year was that he was "not in favour of a watered down version of the abolition of the dual mandate". He was not willing at that time to consider anything other than an immediate and total ban on Members of the Oireachtas serving on local authorities, with total effect from the date of the next local authority elections.

The Minister's desire for consistency and lack of desire to water down the abolition of the dual mandate is not reflected in this legislation, however. He has literally created a different category of disqualification by making separate provisions for those elected to the European Parliament. He has watered down the provisions of the abolition of the dual mandate. I wish to give notice, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage to give effect to the abolition of the dual mandate for the European Parliament on 11 June, the same date on which it will take effect for members of local authorities.

I would like to discuss a second issue. I am surprised that a Bill which deals with European Parliament elections does not address the Kelly judgment. Deputies will recall that the High Court reached a judgment the day before polling in the 2002 general election which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The net effect of the judgment was that the resources available to incumbents are calculable and accountable for the purposes of election spending limits and accountability. If that applies in Dáil elections, which the Kelly judgment addressed, I presume it also extends to European elections. I presume that incumbents who are Members of the European Parliament will be required to account for their use of European Parliament resources during the election campaign. I presume the resources will be taken into account when assessing whether a candidate exceeded the spending limit for the election.

The Government suggested after the Kelly judgment that the issue would be addressed in some way by means of legislation, but we have not yet seen such a Bill. It is surprising that the implications of the Kelly judgment have not been addressed in this Bill, which deals with European Parliament elections. I would like the Minister of State to explain in his response why this is the case.

The third issue I would like to raise in respect of this Bill relates to the entitlement of certain people to vote in European elections. Non-Irish nationals who are citizens of EU member states are entitled, in theory at least, to be on the electoral register in this State for the European Parliament elections and to vote in Ireland in those elections. Following the publication some time ago of the most recent census returns, the Labour Party drew attention to the significant number of people living in Ireland who were born outside the State. I think that about 12% of those living in this country were born outside the State, mostly in Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. When one takes into account those who were born in other parts of the European Union, approximately 280,000 people living in this State — I assume most of them are over the age of 18 — are entitled to vote in European Parliament elections.

However, it has been drawn to my attention that it is quite difficult for somebody who is a citizen of another EU state to enrol on the electoral register here. Under section 6 of the 1997 Act, an EU national who wants to be on the register in Ireland must furnish a statutory declaration. That means that he or she must go to a solicitor, for example, to confirm that he or she is not in a position to vote abroad. This is extremely inconvenient and goes far beyond what is required by the European Union directive, which is only that a formal statement be made to that effect.

I give notice to the House and to the Minister, in particular, that on Committee Stage I will be tabling an amendment to that provision to ensure that citizens from other EU states are entitled to join the Irish electoral register upon making a formal statement, as required by the directive, rather than a statutory declaration as provided for in the current stringent legislation. The House should send out a clear message that nationals of other EU states who are living here and contributing to the country in many ways are welcome to vote here in EU elections. That change in the law should be made to encourage more EU nationals to vote in the European elections.

The fourth issue I wish to raise, which has already been dealt with by Deputy Allen, is electronic voting. This issue has been discussed at the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government. The Labour Party has made known publicly its views on and reservations about the system of electronic voting which is being introduced. We have made it clear that we are unhappy that the Government intends to proceed to introduce the planned system of electronic voting in every constituency for the next European and local elections. Serious reservations have been raised about the system to be introduced, mainly from people within the IT industry. The people who gave evidence before the committee were IT experts. They know what they are talking about. An increasing volume of literature is appearing, especially on the Internet — much of it originating in the United States — which expresses a great deal of caution about some of the electronic voting systems being introduced.

The Comptroller and Auditor General was asked by the Committee of Public Accounts to consider whether he would exercise his functions in such a way as to stall the procurement process for the electronic voting system, on the basis that the expenditure of substantial funds from the Exchequer on equipment that might not fulfil its intended purpose would be imprudent and would not represent value for money. Understandably, he took the view that this approach was outside his remit. He did, however, go on to communicate to the Committee of Public Accounts a serious caution about the electronic voting system.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not appropriate to attribute views to the Comptroller and Auditor General. As the Deputy is aware, it is not appropriate to attribute views to a constitutional officer which are confidential to the committee concerned, in this case the Committee of Public Accounts, but also as no other Member has seen a copy of the correspondence.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of information, this is not a matter confidential to the committee as it has already appeared in the public press.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The correspondence is confidential to the members of the committee.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The matter appeared in the public press.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy McCormack is right.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under a long-standing ruling in the House——

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This matter is already in the public arena.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is before a committee of the House, which will deal with it.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will abide by your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle, because Deputy Allen has already put the appropriate paragraph ofthe Comptroller and Auditor General's correspondence on the record of the House, so it is not necessary for me to repeat it. There may be arguments about the merits or otherwise of the concerns raised about electronic voting — whether the testing has been adequate, whether there should be independent monitoring of that testing, whether there should be a paper trail created by individual voters which can be audited, whether the software can be corrupted in any way and, ultimately, whether the result announced after the electronic vote accurately reflects the intentions of the voters. One can debate this at considerable length. I give considerable weight to the reservations that have been expressed. However, one issue is not debatable. In any democracy worth its salt, no Government which had a respect for democracy and for the parliamentary process would insist, as this Government does, on proceeding with fundamental changes in the way people cast their votes without the general agreement of those engaged in the political process.

This Government intends to proceed to change the way in which people vote in the face of opposition and reservations from every Opposition party in this House. If we heard of this happening in some former South American dictatorship — that the Government, in the face of opposition from everybody else engaged in politics, was proceeding with changes in the voting system, and that the Minister with overall responsibility for seeing that through was none other than the Government party's director of elections — we would be sending for the UN monitors to investigate whether elections were being conducted in a free and fair way. This is not a question of the Government pushing through a Bill to which the Opposition is opposed. It is an issue at the heart of democracy. The Government's decision to press ahead with this is reflective of an arrogance that is becoming increasingly insufferable.

Where are the watchdogs of the Government? The PDs offered themselves to the people in July 2002 on the basis that they would ride shotgun with Fianna Fáil. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform climbed a lamppost and successfully persuaded a sufficient section of the electorate that the PDs would keep an eye on Fianna Fáil. There would be no Fianna Fáil excesses while the PDs were keeping an eye on them. Where have they been on this issue? Why are they not now doing the job they were elected to do, which was to monitor the integrity of the democratic system? They have been silent and invisible on this issue. In the course of this debate — one of the last opportunities we will have to discuss this in the House before the local and European elections — I would like to hear at least one representative of the Progressive Democrats justify its members' silence on this unilateral change to the voting system.

I draw the Minister of State's attention to where this legislation will end up. The way in which it is proposed to introduce electronic voting for June's European and local elections cannot be done without primary legislation. If the Government proceeds with its proposal, it may run into constitutional difficulties in the courts. I understand that the legal position on electronic voting is that the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 enables the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to make ministerial orders which trigger the use of electronic voting in specific elections and in named constituencies or electoral areas. Specific ministerial orders had to be made, for example, to allow electronic voting to be used in three constituencies at the last general election and in a number of constituencies in the second Nice referendum.

However, no regulations or ministerial orders have yet been made to allow electronic voting to be used in next June's European and local elections. On 18 December 2003, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, in reply to parliamentary questions tabled by Deputy Finian McGrath and myself, stated that, "An order dealing with use of electronic voting and other arrangements for the 2004 polls will be made in due course." That order has not yet been made. On 28 Wednesday 2004, I asked the Taoiseach in the House:

I understand the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is required to make regulations governing the operation of the local elections in June which would include the provisions for electronic voting. When will those regulations be laid before the House?

The Taoiseach did not appear to know if such regulations were required. When I pressed the matter he said, "I have been told by the Minister that there are no regulations. Guidelines have been issued." It appears that the Government is at sixes and sevens as to whether regulations are required.

Tomorrow, the Government intends to launch an expensive public relations campaign on electronic voting for the June local and European elections for which there is, as yet, no statutory authority, and about which the Government seems, at best, confused. Whenever the Government gets its act together on drafting the ministerial order, it will find that it has a constitutional problem. The required ministerial order will have to be made under section 48 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001. Section 48 of the Act states:

Subject to subsection (3), the Minister may by order make such adaptations of, or modifications to, the Presidential Elections Act, 1993, the European Parliament Elections Act, 1997, the Local Elections Regulations, 1995, the Referendum Act, 1994 . . . [it lists other enactments] . . . as will enable voting and counting of votes at the relevant election or referendum under the said enactment or enactments to take place using equipment approved for use under this Part.

Recently, the courts have found, as in the Carrickmines case, that the use of ministerial orders to modify primary legislation is not constitutional. It follows, therefore, that if the Government attempts to provide for electronic voting in June's elections by means of ministerial order under section 48 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, it will be open to constitutional challenge in the courts. The Government is proceeding to spend money on the electronic voting system before the necessary statutory instruments have been laid before the House. This is also before the House has the opportunity to consider the statutory instruments for the 21 sitting days, which we are entitled to do before we decide whether to rescind them. I also question if this is the proper use of public funds. The Government is proceeding to spend money in engaging public relations consultants to advertise electronic voting and persuade the public that it is good before the statutory instruments which give effect to it have been laid before the House.

If, and when, those statutory instruments are made on the basis of section 48 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001, the Government will leave itself open to a court challenge on the constitutionality of such ministerial orders. Given the precedent that has now been set in the Carrickmines case, there is the possibility that all the ballyhoo about electronic voting will come to nothing. The last constitutional challenge to an electoral matter was decided by the High Court on the eve of polling day. In what situation will we find ourselves if, shortly before polling day, the courts decide that the legislation has not been properly made?

Many experts have publicly raised reservations. The Opposition is uneasy and does not want electronic voting to proceed in the forthcoming elections. The legislative instruments to give effect to electronic voting have not yet been laid before the House. There is the possibility that when they are made, they will be found to be unconstitutional. For these reasons the plans to proceed with electronic voting for the forthcoming European and local elections should be suspended and I will table an amendment to that effect on Committee Stage.

Whatever about the technical issues that arise with electronic voting and the legal and constitutional issues that may be addressed elsewhere, there is also a political aspect to this issue. Essentially, it is about how the Government views democracy. It is about whether there is any respect in the Government for Opposition viewpoints and the will of this House in its totality. That is not just expressed by the majoritarian approach by the Government that as long as it gets numbers in divisions, it can proceed with anything it wishes. The Government is playing a dangerous game with democracy and public confidence in the electoral process by insisting on changing the way we vote without a sufficient level of political consensus.

There is time for this process to be put on hold. There will be no loss of face and it will do much to strengthen confidence in politics if the Government, even at this late stage, were to do so. In any event, the Government will come unstuck on this issue in the courts.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share my time with Deputies Morgan and Harkin, giving them ten minutes each.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed?

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the legislation in broad terms. It is timely and proper that the constituencies are revised and it is important a transparent process was used to do so. I raised my eyebrows slightly at the parameters for population used to define the revised constituencies, as they went slightly beyond what we traditionally took as the relatively narrow bandwidth within which population numbers fell. However, I recognise that some respect must be paid to geographical areas and county boundaries to ensure consistency. My party and I welcome the end of the dual mandate. We hope that at last local authority members will be given proper powers and responsibilities.

I offer my sympathy to County Clare, which always seems to be the odd man out in these revisions. It seems to shift from south to north to west and back again, which must place the county in a difficult position, and its aspiring candidates for European elections are also in a difficult position. They do not know if they will be in the south, west or north of Ireland. Clare is in the new north-west constituency but maybe that should be called north and west. A new note is being struck here which might cause confusion among interested parties.

It is interesting to see the options that were chosen. The dramatic option would have been to put all the areas under consideration into one 13 seat constituency and we would have welcomed a debate on that option. We feel one large constituency might lead to more representation for voices which are not often heard, while the choice of three three-seat constituencies will probably make it more difficult for smaller parties, my own included, to win seats. When I was a city councillor, I was in a constituency which went from five seats to three and it was very difficult to win representation for a smaller party in a three-seat constituency. It will be difficult for us to win in a three-seater but we will have a good candidate and I do not doubt that she will be elected.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is not conceding.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not conceding. Mary White will deliver a seat for the Green Party in the new East constituency very effectively.

A significant concern about this Bill is the radical change in voting systems. Most of us have sat through hours of debate on electronic voting and my initial reaction to electronic voting was "Great, let us embrace future technology." However, the more I listened to those who came before the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, the more I was convinced that electronic voting, as it currently stands, is not the way forward for the election to be held this June.

The concerns raised were valid and real. If one looks at the US, those concerns have been expressed strongly in the last decade to the point where certain states, such as New Hampshire, threw out electronic voting because they wanted a paper ballot. That is the technology those states are using now.

The kernel of the argument is that we want to see a tangible paper trail which is resistant to tampering. We want verifiable, independent proof of how a person voted. If one buys a lottery ticket one comes out of the shop with evidence of the numbers chosen. I accept one cannot do that in an election but, in effect, one can leave the lottery ticket behind in a box so that there is an independent way to see if the right vote was recorded. I am nervous about this and I am more nervous having heard the experts, particularly their discussions of the software which will be used.

That is not to say that computers are not reliable. They are very reliable, but there are also many ways in which they can let us down. Programmes such as Microsoft Access can fail to deliver the right results and I am wary of the software being used in this case. I am wary of anyone who claims computer technology is 100% reliable, as I know from bitter experience how computers can crash and records can be lost or changed. I was trying to put some information into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet recently but the programme kept changing the year 2003 to 2008, despite my best efforts to reformat the information.

Many tests of electronic voting software, and some real elections, have shown up significant flaws. In an election in Broward County, Florida, 134 voters were disenfranchised because the electronic voting machine showed no votes and there was no way to show those voters' intentions. That election was decided by 12 votes, so the fact that those 134 voters were disenfranchised may have significantly altered the result.

In the 2000 US presidential election nobody could explain why one area in Florida gave Al Gore minus 16,022 votes. I can appreciate that his vote might have fallen in certain counties, but it must be the ultimate indignity to be awarded minus votes in a real election.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy would not refuse them.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If they were for certain other candidates in the ward I was running in, I would be happy to see it happen.

Electronic voting may be the way forward. We all use a great deal of electronics in our daily lives but we are rushing to implement this technology in the European elections and my party believes we should pause for thought before proceeding. If one bought a car in the morning one would get the chance to kick the tyres, but we are not giving the experts the chance to kick the tyres when it comes to this electronic voting system. In other countries computer hackers and programmers have been given a chance to exploit the vulnerabilities of the system, just as one would allow people to tamper with a new telephone box before it is put on the streets. We should give hackers a chance to see what vulnerabilities exist in the new technology and whether those vulnerabilities will cause significant problems.

We must realise that technology changes very quickly. We see advertisements everywhere for Wi-Fi hotspots, places where one can immediately get onto the Internet with one's laptop if one has the appropriate technology. I am not convinced that those in charge of the voting systems around Ireland will be acutely aware of the possible vulnerabilities of the system, such as attaching a Wi-Fi card to a computer to be used in the voting process or allowing a small memory chip, that would fit in one's pocket, to be put into the back of a machine.

I have no doubt all these issues have been considered in detail, but I have not yet seen answers to the very real difficulties exposed by experts who took the time to come before the committee. I do not believe their questions were fully answered. Concerns have been raised about the operation of electronic voting across the water in the US. I have yet to be convinced that the difficulties identified have been completely solved. We should be allowed kick the tyres in more detail than we have so far been allowed to do.

In spite of concerns, we are rushing into launching the whole enterprise tomorrow. The Green Party has serious concerns and is contemplating a legal challenge to the immediate introduction of this system. People's concerns should be addressed in more detail. We are concerned that the paper trail will not exist. Speed must always take a back seat to accuracy. Of course, there are spoiled votes in general elections and other elections. There is a lot of humming and hawing and legal brain power applied to scrutinising every ballot. It is necessary to have some kind of back-up that people can see, not just an electronic back-up of the voters registered, but an independent record that can be consulted at a later stage separate to the electronic modules that ostensibly record the vote. For a Government that claims it wants openness and transparency, this is the bare minimum required. I accept it is not easy to do so and it is unlikely that it can be provided for in the next few months. However, to restore voter confidence in a system about which we are all concerned, we should reverse the decision that has been made. After all, a member of the last Government, Bobby Molloy, said he would not introduce electronic voting unless he got consensus on the issue from all sides in the House, which we have not yet seen.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was a member of the Progressive Democrats who did his job.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The entire Opposition has expressed concern about this matter. In summary, we have concerns and are considering a challenge to the system. We do not consider ourselves to be Luddites, but we hope we will not rush into adopting a completely radical system.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposals of the constituency commission encompassed in the European Parliament Election (Amendment) Bill 2003 are not in the best interest of the electorate. It is unfortunate that this Bill is before the House.

Sinn Féin opposed the Nice treaty which brought about a reduction in the number of MEPs representing the State and necessitated the introduction of the amendments to the European Parliament Elections Act 1993 addressed in the Bill. The reduction in the number of MEPs is regrettable because it will further increase the void between the electorate and their elected representatives, which is particularly marked in regard to the European Parliament with which the public does not identify.

My primary concern about the Bill is that it continues the move away from larger constituencies, towards three-seat constituencies. The steady growth in the number of three-seat constituencies at both Dáil and EU level is in contradiction to the original intention and the main purpose of a proportional representation, single transferable vote, PRSTV, system. When originally developed, the proportional representation system with multi-seat constituencies was envisaged as a positive one which accommodated minorities. In the 1920s, nine and seven-seat Dáil constituencies existed. In the coming European election, we will have one four-seat constituency and three three-seat constituencies. For general election purposes we have 18 three-seat constituencies, 13 four-seat constituencies and 12 five-seat constituencies.

The PRSTV system has been diluted substantially through the selective redrawing of constituency boundaries, such as that contained in the Bill and the reduction in constituency size in terms of Members elected from nine and seven-seat constituencies to five, four and three-seaters. The constituency commission was constrained by legislation, introduced by the establishment parties to serve their own purposes, to have constituency sizes of between three and five seats. This does nothing to further attempts to allow for the widest possible representation.

Sinn Féin made a comprehensive submission to the constituencies commission in regard to the European Parliament elections. I reiterate a number of points made in that submission. The criteria for an electoral system should allow for the election of a true representation of all groups in society. The decline in voter participation throughout Ireland makes this increasingly difficult. It is particularly marked in the Twenty-six Counties where a recent Central Statistics Office survey showed that voter abstention is highest among young people. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Our suggestions included automatic registration of those eligible to vote.

Sinn Féin's submission proposed that the potential to develop an all-Ireland aspect to these elections be seized, that the whole island be considered as one EU constituency electing members under a closed PR list system. This would offer the most proportional outcome possible and could help ensure the previously outlined objectives of a fair electoral system, reducing the barriers to minority groups and maximising electoral participation, while ensuring parliamentary diversity. For the first time, we would have a system where vote share translates equitably into seat shares for the entire island.

Voters throughout Ireland will go to the polls for the EU elections and the EU already treats the island as a single entity in many aspects of its work, especially in terms of the CAP, the Common Fisheries Policy and the distribution of funding under the Peace and Reconciliation Programme. It makes sense that an island-wide approach to the European parliamentary elections be considered.

Recognising that this may be difficult to achieve in the short term, we proposed an alternative to the commission, that the Twenty-six Counties be treated as one constituency administered under the PR list system and at a later date, the Six Counties could be included in this constituency. This could operate as a simple closed system where voters could accept the party candidate list as a given or the system could allow for internal choice within a party vote.

Sinn Féin believes that a fully functioning representative electoral system is an imperative in modern society, where an ever-increasing amount of vested interests compete to influence the policy formulation and decision-taking process at national and international fora. God knows we have seen enough of that in this State recently. We favour a system that reduces barriers to smaller parties and minorities, that maximises electoral participation and ensures parliamentary diversity. We want a system where vote share translates equitably into seat shares.

EU elections could be used to try out more proportional democratic electoral systems and increase voter participation as well as broaden the electoral spectrum to one that would be truly representative of Irish society. In mutating the PRSTV system through the creation of three-seat constituencies, the Bill does not achieve this goal.

Sinn Féin supported the ending of the dual mandate between local government and the Dáil. We also support the ending of the dual mandate between Leinster House and the European Parliament. Both Parliaments will be better served by the separation of the roles of TDs and MEPs. It will allow elected Members to devote their full attention to one elected body and will facilitate better governance at Dáil and European levels. The ending of the dual mandate should be brought about immediately. I ask the Minister to outline the reason this is being delayed until the next Dáil election. I see no reason for this.

I also wish to comment briefly on the introduction of electronic voting which will be used in most constituencies for the first time in the coming European and local elections. There is widespread concern regarding the system of electronic voting introduced in this State.

Margaret McGaley and Paul Gibson of the computer science department in NUI, Maynooth, published a study called, Electronic Voting: A Safety Critical System, which concluded, "While an adequate electronic voting system is possible, the current proposal is not it." Zerflow, which carried out a security assessment on behalf of the Department, also pointed out some serious flaws in the system.

Sinn Féin is supportive of the idea of electronic voting using a kiosk-type system. However, we are calling for all source code and design to be publicly available for inspection by citizens, especially computer science experts. We also call for the Mercuri method to be applied. Under this, a paper copy of the vote, verified by the voter, is held for the purpose of independent recount and for parallel manual counting to be used for a period so voter confidence is enhanced and for systems to be truly tested. If electronic voting is to gain public confidence, the serious concerns about the system being introduced in this State must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recently received a document entitled Bunreacht an hEoraip, the Irish translation of the proposed constitution for Europe. This document is still under negotiation yet seeing its title, instead of the more familiar title Bunreacht na hÉireann, brings home how important the European dimension is and how much it impinges on our lives, even if it is an unseen hand. Nonetheless, the work of the European Parliament leaves an indelible mark on Irish society.

Legislation coming from Europe impinges significantly on the way we live our lives. As a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs where I have been involved in the scrutiny of legislation, I have seen at first hand the huge volume of legislation coming from Europe. There are draft directives, draft decisions and Council decisions. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations of the constituency commission report of 2003, and to give effect to Council decisions of the EU of 25 June and 23 September 2002. The most significant implications of these Council decisions are to establish new categories of office holders who are not eligible for election, and to give effect to the decision that the office of membership of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of a member of a national parliament. It is the abolition of the dual mandate with certain derogations for Irish and British MEPs.

One of the most significant changes in European elections for Ireland is that the number of MEPs will be reduced in line with the Nice treaty. The Nice treaty sets out the number of post-accession MEPs at approximately 732, although this may increase to 736. Ireland's representation has dropped from 15 to 12 seats. Britain's number of seats has dropped from 87 to 72, while Spain's representation has been reduced from 64 to 50. These changes have inevitably led to constituency revisions within Ireland so all our citizens will have fair and equal representation in the European Parliament. Most people will consider that the constituency revision is reasonable, with Clare joining the old Connacht-Ulster constituency that now becomes North-West. I agree with Deputy Cuffe when he suggests that north and west might be a more appropriate name for the constituency.

While Clare joining Connacht-Ulster breaches provincial boundaries, it does not breach county boundaries. Provincial boundaries have been breached before vis-À-vis Leinster and Dublin. In this sense, the constituency commission followed its guidelines. However, the same cannot be said for the commission's report on redrawing Dáil constituencies. One of its guidelines was not to breach county boundaries, yet it has done so. It has split County Leitrim in two. With approximately 25,000 residents, Leitrim has the smallest population of any county. The effect of this decision on the morale of the people in County Leitrim is depressing. There is a possibility that the county may not be able to elect a Deputy resident in the county. This is a mortal blow to county pride and to the sense of importance of the county boundary. In the last census, Leitrim showed its first increase in population in more than 100 years.

On the Order of Business, the Taoiseach attempted to make little of this debate. It is as if we are somehow irrelevant and what is said in this Chamber is irrelevant. The Taoiseach said that while some say Clare should be in Leinster, the commission decided Clare should be in Connacht. Where does the Taoiseach think Leitrim should be: half with Sligo, half with Roscommon; a bit here and a bit there? The Taoiseach went on to say that the commission's decision is made and it is a fait accompli. Does the Taoiseach think it is over for Leitrim? Is it a fait accompli? What about the delegation from Leitrim County Council, no doubt containing many Fianna Fáil public representatives, that is seeking a meeting with the Minister or the Taoiseach? Are they aware of the Taoiseach's view that this is done and dusted? Are they aware that the Fianna Fáil submission to the commission recommended the splitting of County Leitrim? Perhaps this is empty rhetoric to satisfy constituents and pretend that some effort is being made while the Taoiseach is washing his hands of it. I have no doubt the Taoiseach will apply the same argument to the general election boundaries.

What the Taoiseach did not say was that while the commission is independent, its hands were tied by the requirement that the minimum number of seats in a constituency is three, and the maximum number is five. Until this is changed, and it must be changed, Leitrim will remain divided. This House has the power to effect this change and recommend the reversion to circumstances where there can be six and seven seat constituencies. The restriction to three, four and five seat constituencies is a relatively recent one. Indeed, this suits the larger parties and militates against smaller parties and independents. Paddy Harte, a former Fine Gael Deputy, made an excellent case in a recent article on this issue in The Irish Times and I fully agree with his views.

I do not share the views expressed by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuiv. Speaking in Drumshanbo about the decision of the constituency commission, he said that this is what happens when too much power is put in the hands of unelected individuals. What happens when this power is put in the hands of elected individuals? Fianna Fáil's submission recommended that Leitrim be split in two and the constituency commission arrived at the same conclusion. However, Deputy Ó Cuiv tried to suggest that the views of the commission and Fianna Fáil are different. They are not; their views are identical and the people of Leitrim know this.

The introduction of electronic voting is an important issue in the forthcoming European and local elections. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputies Gilmore and Cuffe and the reservations they have about this system. While I understand that we need to adapt to modern technological advances, there must be a back-up system and provision must be made for verification so all citizens can have confidence in the electoral system. The Government has a duty to ensure this is the case. While I agree that electronic voting is the correct measure to take, all back-up measures must be put in place before the system comes into operation. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that the Government is about to spend a large sum of money on a PR campaign to sell electronic voting before the statutory instruments are in place.

If in the run-up to the local elections and the European election, Ministers and members of Government come to the fore in this PR campaign just as they did before the general election, it will be nothing short of an abuse of taxpayers' money.

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003. This arises from the findings of the commission set up to draw the appropriate boundaries to provide the necessary representation to the European Parliament. I have great respect for Deputy Harkin's views, but it is unworthy to cast aspersions, even inadvertently, on the working of the independent commission. Nobody is ever satisfied at the outcome of the redrawing of constituency boundaries. That is the hand of cards we have been dealt and we should be big enough to play the hand.

I pay tribute to the Members of the European Parliament who represent Ireland, North and South. I had the opportunity over an 18 month period of working reasonably closely with a number of them. I met all of them, with one exception, and they impressed me. I am full of praise for our MEPs from all parties and none. At this stage I pay tribute to those who are not going forward and compliment them for the work they have done. Mr. Niall Andrews, a Fianna Fáil representative for Dublin who is not seeking re-election, has an unparalleled record in bringing human rights issues of the lesser known parts of the world to the attention of the broader European electorate as well as at home. Ms Mary Banotti regularly gave feedback to the electorate in Dublin and we should have more of that. Mr. Fitzsimons and Mr. Hyland brought their unique experience to bear on the work of the European Parliament. Mr. Joe McCartin, who impressed me greatly, will not go forward again. He had insights about rural Ireland which he was not afraid to voice. I was impressed by the manner in which the MEPs worked in the European groups.

If I were to sound a cautionary note for those thinking of going forward as candidates for the European elections it is that the Irish electorate will expect more information and greater contact with their MEPs. Deputy Harkin and I are on the European affairs and European scrutiny committees and whether we like it much of the action that affects us fundamentally will take place in Brussels or Strasbourg and the influence of the European Parliament will be greater rather than lesser.

I will set out the job description for a Member of the European Parliament. According to the draft constitution which will be adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference and Council of Ministers, article 13(1) states that the European Parliament shall jointly with the Council of Ministers enact legislation and exercise the budgetary function as well as functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the constitution. It will elect the President of the European Commission. These are important powers. I echo what has been said by a number of speakers that it is outdated to represent the electorate both in the Dáil and the European Parliament. While we have a derogation until 2007, we should ensure that nobody is tempted to continue that further. It states also that the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage of European citizens in free and secret ballot for a term of five years. Its members shall not exceed 736 in number and representation of European citizens shall be degressively proportional with a minimum threshold of four members per member state.

As to illusions of the growing power of the Parliament, article 26(2) states that the president and the person so nominated for membership of the college — the college of the commission — including the future Union Minister for Foreign Affairs as well as the persons nominated as non-voting commissioners shall be submitted collectively to a vote of approval by the European Parliament and the Commission's term of office shall be five years. Let there be no doubt that the power of the European Parliament is growing and will grow further.

The engagement of the Oireachtas with the European Parliament has improved dramatically in recent years, It is infinitely better than when I served from 1997 to 2002. That is due in large measure to Government decisions to accord a higher priority to the work of the European affairs committee and I acknowledge the compliments the Taoiseach and Ministers have paid to the members of the European affairs committee. The media have shown a greater level of interest in the work of the European affairs committee since 1 January but I doubt if it will continue beyond 30 June — I live in hope.

The other area that has contributed greatly to the interface between the Dáil, the European Parliament, the Commission and the work of Brussels has been the improved level of scrutiny that has been put in place here by the Government. Four items from Thursday's meeting of the European affairs committee involve co-decision between the Parliament and the Commission and were submitted to us for preliminary scrutiny. First is a proposal amending a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security. That proposal will have a significant and positive impact on the operation of smaller airports in Ireland and across Europe. I understand it is being introduced largely at the behest of the Scandinavian countries and smaller airports in Scotland. Second, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on intermodal loading units. I know the jargon puts people off and colleagues say we need to simplify the language of directives and laws coming from Europe. We could start by using simpler English.

This is an important proposal in the area of transport. Through the proposed directive the European committee on standardisation would be mandated over a three year period to work out details on the standards necessary for intermodal loading units and a regulatory committee would then adopt the mandatory standards.

The implications for Ireland are clear in the documents we have received but the method will be qualified majority voting and a co-decision will also be required by the European Parliament and the Council.

I think Deputy Harkin would agree that we receive approximately 50 of these documents at each meeting. Another one involves a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council concerning measures to safeguard the security of electricity supplies and infrastructural investment. That directive forms part of a new energy infrastructure and security of supply legislative package, which is designed in the main to promote investment in the European energy sector with a view both to strengthening competition and helping to prevent a recurrence of electricity blackouts. It has some implications, although not great, for Ireland but it adverts to the increasing dependence of Ireland on the North-South interconnector and the east-west Ireland-Wales interconnection system also. Those are a couple of relevant examples.

Another directive concerns excise duties and I will have to do some more reading up on it before talking about it on Thursday. It strikes me as possibly being the thin end of the wedge of standardisation of taxation measures in some areas. This is certainly something the Government is not anxious to see happening and it is part of our negotiating stance at the IGC.

Under the proposed constitution, the European Parliament will be closely linked to national Parliaments. It is important to debate and understand the role of, and protocols relating to, national Parliaments. For example, under the proposed constitution, member states' national Parliaments may send to the President of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission, a reasoned opinion on whether a legislative proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity according to the procedure laid down in the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Even though I was involved in drafting this, when I read it, I do not think it is exactly the clearest literature in the world. The important part is in the following paragraph, which states: "A six week period shall elapse between a legislative proposal being made available by the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the member states' national parliaments in the official languages of the European Union, and the date when it is placed on the agenda of the Council of Ministers for adoption of a position on a legislative procedure subject to exceptions on the grounds of urgency, etc." That represents a significant tightening up of the inter-relationship between national Parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers.

I admire the fact that the more active Members of the European Parliament have always engaged in an exchange of information and feedback to the electorate. They need, however, to move to the next stage and we should facilitate them in providing formalised mechanisms so they can engage in debate in their national Parliaments. During the last term, there was a useful exercise in the Seanad when Members of the European Parliament made statements to the Upper House and engaged in a question and answer session with Senators. That was an important first step but we need to engage more creatively with Members of the European Parliament. They attend meetings of the Committee on European Affairs, as of right. Many of them are diligent in their attendance and contributions there but it has been said that the committee does not schedule its meetings at times that are convenient for Members of the European Parliament. Perhaps there is something in that criticism. On a number of occasions, the MEPs have said they would prefer the Committee on European Affairs to sit on Fridays to facilitate their attendance.

While I do not pretend to be an expert on how previous European Parliaments operated, from the next European Parliament onwards, national and European parliamentarians will depend on one another and will not be able to act otherwise. Significant debate is required, for example, on security and defence policy. There is much more engagement in that area in the European Parliament than in the Oireachtas or most other national Parliaments in Europe. There is also the perspective of what the European family, as it is called in Europe, can bring to bear on such debates. With increased numbers in the next European Parliament following the arrival of the ten accession countries in May and the likelihood that we will have at least two more new member states shortly thereafter, it would be extremely foolish to think that the European Parliament will be simply a talking shop. It is, and will be, far from that. Critical areas include defence, foreign affairs and security, and we cannot ignore the fact that we will have to have some co-ordination of those policies.

I have one major criticism of the European Parliament, however. I am not persuaded of the need to have a second assembly in Strasbourg, which is a waste of money. It is an inefficient way of conducting the business of Europe. The organisation in Brussels seems to be well tailored to provide a fairly efficient operation. I realise that there is a certain national pride at stake for the countries involved in accommodating the European Parliament but it is one of the areas in which Europe has fallen down. I do not know whether our lone voice will make any great difference but perhaps things would be more efficient if the Council of Europe continued its good work in Strasbourg, while the European Parliament was located permanently in Brussels.

Admittedly, the Bill provides for us to send a reduced number of Irish MEPs this time around but it reflects the extent of our population. We still do marginally better in representation than our population should entitle us to do but, nonetheless, it is important to keep the membership as high as possible. That point was debated at length during the convention on the future of Europe. There is a threshold below which small countries, such as Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg, can lose influence.

The Bill is technical in nature but provides an opportunity to affirm our understanding of the importance of the European Parliament, as well as an opportunity to stress how we see ourselves as contributors to the debate on Europe. While only a month of our current EU Presidency has passed, Irish Presidencies have always been most proactive and creative. The current one will probably cap its predecessors in terms of achievement.

I would like to see the Intergovernmental Conference's debate on the draft European constitution concluded, but we should not rush all our fences. In many ways, having no European constitution would be better than having a bad one. While the Council of Heads of State and Government was very close to agreement last December, we must remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

There is potential for some of the issues we hoped had been put to bed to be reopened again, which is something we should try to avoid. However, that is in the future.

I wish the very best to all those contemplating putting their names forward as candidates in the forthcoming elections on 11 June. They are taking on a huge level of responsibility. I hope the people will find the election campaign and the lead-up to it an opportunity for engaging in active debate about Ireland's role in the new and expanding Europe. Not to avail of that opportunity is a missed opportunity. I do not expect we will be able to get large crowds at the crossroads, as in earlier days in Irish politics, to listen to the obscure and abstruse aspects of European politics. However, it would be a shame not to play our part and use the opportunity to explain to the people we represent the mechanisms in place to make Europe more real to its citizens. We should also use the opportunity to explain to them the reasons it is important for us to complete and adopt a draft constitutional treaty.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputy Hayes.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of this Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Constituency Commission Report 2003 on changes to European Parliament constituencies and to give effect to the Council decisions of 25 June and 23 December 2002 concerning the election of Members to the European Parliament. I regret that after the redrawing of the constituencies Ireland will lose two seats. We are holding our number of seats compared to other European countries but despite our increasing population we are still losing two seats. I accept the independence of the commission which had the job of redrawing the constituencies and coming up with a conclusion.

Neither I nor the people of Clare regret that Clare has to join its neighbours in Connacht-Ulster. It is unusual that there are three provinces represented in the north-west constituency. It might have been more fitting if the constituency was called Connacht-Ulster-Clare or by some name which would recognise the addition of Clare to the constituency.

Some of our selection conventions have gone ahead already despite the fact that the new constituencies will not be officially recognised until this legislation is passed, possibly this week if Committee Stage is completed tomorrow. Fine Gael held a selection convention in Sligo on Sunday. We welcome Clare into the new north-west constituency and have a very good candidate from the county, former Senator Madeleine Taylor-Quinn, who was selected with Senator Jim Higgins. They are a good combination both geographically and gender wise to retain two seats for the party in Connacht-Ulster.

Our outgoing MEP, Joe McCartin, who is the longest serving MEP in the country and one of the longest serving in Europe, will retire after 25 years service. I compliment him on his service to the Connacht-Ulster constituency over the past 25 years. Somebody described him on Sunday as a statesman. I looked up the word in the dictionary to find out the difference between a statesman and a politician. I found that a politician worries about the next election but a statesman worries about the next generation. Joe McCartin as an MEP and formerly a Member of this House and the Seanad is a statesman and a true European who represents the European ideal. His representation in Europe on behalf of this country will be sadly missed. I wish him every success in his retirement and also wish success to his possible successors, Senator Jim Higgins and councillor Madeleine Taylor-Quinn.

County Clare is west of the Shannon so perhaps it was natural in the redrawing of the constituencies to include it with Connacht-Ulster. Perhaps the independent commission, which had no option but to reduce the number of seats to 13, looked at the issue geographically. Clare is now included with Connacht-Ulster and I am sure there will be co-operation between candidates and people in the area to send the best three MEPs to Europe to represent the area for the next five years.

This Bill also deals with the termination of the dual mandate for a person who is a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. A once-off derogation will apply until the next general election to a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas who is elected to the European Parliament in June 2004. That is a bit too generous. When this legislation was discussed in committee, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government said that the same regulations would apply to abolishing the dual mandate here as to the dual mandate between local authority members and Oireachtas Members. Perhaps the dual mandate of local authority and Oireachtas Members may not be abolished because Deputy Ring is involved in a High Court challenge to it and judgment has not yet been given in the matter. We may all have the opportunity to decide what to do when the result of that challenge is known.

At present there is a clear difference between the regulations for both dual mandates. The legislation introduced in the Dáil to abolish the local authority and Oireachtas dual mandate applies from the next election. It applies so strictly that a Member of the Oireachtas is not eligible to stand for a local authority. However, a Member of the Oireachtas is entitled to stand for the European elections next June. Not only that, the Member can serve a further three years as a dual Member of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament.

There is clear and absolute discrimination against the local authority member in terms of the provision in the legislation being introduced to deal with a dual mandate from the European point of view. The Minister has not lived up to his promise or to his absolute assurance to the committee that there would be no difference between abolishing the dual mandate for European Parliament members and local council members.

The European election will be the first election in which we have full electronic voting. All Opposition Members who have spoken here tonight have expressed serious reservations about the electronic voting system and its introduction for that election. I do not have the technical qualifications and do not know enough about the system to say whether it can be fixed.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, as is Deputy Allen. The committee invited independent IT experts to meet the experts from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We wished to facilitate an open and frank discussion of the reservations the independent experts had expressed about the Department officials' confidence in electronic voting. The meeting went well early in the day and there was a frank exchange of views. As Deputy Allen outlined, 40 questions were posed by the IT experts from the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government inspectors. Before lunch, committee members agreed to adjourn the meeting and continue the discussion later that week or early the following one to provide time in which answers could be made to the 40 questions. Once the answers were provided, every member of the committee could have securely supported the idea of electronic voting and provided confidence to the people.

After lunch the committee reconvened but something had happened. I presume the Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats members of the committee had received instructions from the Minister. The Fianna Fáil members proposed that the committee proceed immediately to adopt electronic voting without waiting for answers to the 40 questions. That set a bell ringing in my mind. The Minister seemed to be in an undue rush to proceed with the €40 million contract to introduce electronic voting. Given that the Progressive Democrats are supposed to be the Government's watchdogs, I was surprised to see the party's representative from my constituency, Deputy Grealish, voting with the Government. I was more surprised that the Independent, Deputy Healy-Rae, who had vigorously said he would not trust any electronic voting machine, sent Deputy Fox to substitute for him and vote with the Government. I thought it was an amazing performance. While I have great respect for both Deputies, they were well tied to the Minister's passionate desire to introduce electronic voting. That raised suspicions in my mind.

The Minister would have done better to bring the committee with him. Every member was ready to be convinced that electronic voting was the future. I acknowledge that mistakes can be made with manual voting through the failure to stamp ballot papers. According to the IT experts who attended the committee, mistakes can also be made through the electronic voting system and it may be open to manipulation.

The debate on electronic voting has now moved into the public arena but as committee members, Deputy Allen, Deputy Gilmore and I cannot sell it because we did not adopt it. We are not obliged to defend the electronic voting system around the country. The matter is arising at meetings throughout my constituency and, I am sure, in every other one. People ask for details of electronic voting after reading in the newspaper that the system might not be dependable. They want to know if they can have full confidence in it. I advocate that the Minister should wait and delay implementation of any contracts he has signed to supply the electronic voting system. There is nothing more important than for people to have confidence in the electoral system. If that is lacking, one might as well forget democracy. All the committee sought was a paper trail to which tallymen could revert in the event of a close contest. It could be maintained in a separate ballot box which could be examined if there was a difficulty. It was a simple thing for which to ask, but we did not get it.

The members of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government were not trying to show up the Minister. We were genuinely attempting to remove any doubts we had about the electronic voting system. The former Minister of State and Deputy from my own constituency, Mr. Bobby Molloy, assured the House that electronic voting would not be introduced unless it had all-party agreement. We and the general public depended on that. When they see the system being foisted on them without all-party agreement, members of the public are bound to ask questions. There is a particular problem for older people who are not familiar with IT systems. I put myself in that category. It is difficult for such people to have absolute confidence in electronic voting when they read in the newspapers that the Comptroller and Auditor General is expressing serious doubts on the matter. I am not going by what was said at the Committee of Public Accounts, but by what I read and the general public will have seen in the newspapers.

The IT experts who attended the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government expressed serious doubts but I do not know if they ever received answers to the 40 questions they posed. The committee did not get them. We were simply cut off by the force of numbers because, naturally, the Government has a majority. Hardly anybody knows the committee was in session. The general public do not know and the political reporters certainly do not know. It is a cloak and dagger system. While the proceedings are recorded and the minutes are available to be read, a committee's work does not receive the publicity a Bill receives as it goes through the Dáil. Electronic voting slipped through and it is only now that the real doubts and fears people have are coming to the fore. Worse still, the Minister will launch in the Mansion House the campaign to publicise electronic voting. A contract has been signed with a public relations company which will now spend €5 million of taxpayers' money to promote electronic voting around the country. I do not know if the company will be teaching people about the system or simply promoting the idea. I will probably learn the details tomorrow. As Deputy Allen said, the press will ask tomorrow how we have rushed headlong into an electronic voting system in the absence of all-party agreement in the Dáil. We would all be there tomorrow saying we support the system and believe it is an advance on the manual voting system, that it can be more accurate, and that the result can be known earlier. However, unfortunately, we cannot do that now because of the undue haste with which this was rushed through the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government without waiting for the correct and necessary assurances to be given to its members or the general public that everything was above board and that the 40 questions posed by IT experts from Maynooth could be satisfactorily answered by officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That way everyone would be singing from the same hymn sheet about the merits and validity of the electronic voting system.

I am sorry to say that, whatever reservations I may have had when this was going through Committee Stage under the auspices of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I have greater reservations now, since the public debate is really only starting. How can professional IT experts be wrong when they express such reservations? Those before the committee that day told us, for example, that a machine could be programmed in advance so that every 50 or 100 votes any party received could be left off the voting. It is, therefore, open to manipulation or to the fear that people will not be absolutely confident in it. That is bad for us and for democracy.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Ring.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on this important Bill, the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003. Many of us do not realise the benefits that EC membership has given us. I remember when there were campaigns around the country on the benefits of what Europe would do for us. The country has come a long way. When we look at any section of the community or society, at our roads, infrastructure or whatever, we see that our quality of life has changed much since those days when we were campaigning and people were anxious to get into the European Community. When the referendum was held, Ireland changed for the better.

Since all that change took place, many people have asked questions about Europe and what it has done for us. We have failed as a country — and perhaps Europe is responsible — to make Europe and the European Parliament relevant to the people of this country. That is very important. We have failed to explain to the ordinary man in the street the real relevance of Europe. I suppose they see, from time to time, directives coming at them regarding different areas such as health and education. I even see concern among the agricultural community, particularly progressive farmers, regarding the nitrates directive. They are causing significant concern to people who have been at the forefront of various production lines across the agricultural scene in Europe. They are worried about the nitrates directive. That is a specific example, but a significant number of directives are coming. People feel hemmed in as a result, and many members of the public working in factories, or running businesses or farms, are saying that. We must explain Europe's relevance to them.

If we were doing our job properly, there would be significant interest in European elections. However, there is not the slightest interest in the European elections this year, simply because people feel removed. If the local elections were not being held on the same day, I would hate to think what the turnout would be. That is why I believe, with the local elections held on the same day as the European elections, the turnout will be good. Local authorities have a specific role in terms of the promotion of Europe. There should be much more co-operation on the part of officials, MEPs and so on with local council members to promote ideas of Europe. Our strength as a country is our involvement in Europe, and if people continue to become as cynical as they have been over the last few years, we will face a sad state of affairs in this country.

I do not have much time, but I would like to touch on recent changes. It is very hard for MEPs to keep in touch with their constituencies when they are as big as at present. I have often wondered whether they should not be given some smaller area to look after once elected. Munster, which is now known as the South, and the eastern constituency are both big. There are many people there, and it is extremely difficult.

Deputy Ring is anxious to say a few words, and it would be remiss of me to continue. We certainly need to make Europe more relevant to ordinary people. It is very important from every perspective for our future. I am very pro-Europe, and I want the EU to continue and become stronger.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted at the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Regarding the new constituency of the North-West, Clare is now coming into Connacht-Ulster. The Minister across from me at one time represented it as an MEP. It is a big area. I was reading an article yesterday by Paddy Harte. He was talking about the times when there were six or seven-seat constituencies in Donegal. In Mayo at one time there were nine seats. We are great for elections in this country. It is a little like Sinn Féin — it wants them to be in Government in the North but not in the South. However, it is like that with the voting. In their recent elections, they had six and seven-seat constituencies. If one takes a constituency such as Mayo or the new North-West, one sees that they are massive. It is impossible for MEPs or Oireachtas Members to cover those constituencies.

I raised the issue of electronic voting on the night of the count after the general election in Castlebar at 4 o'clock in the morning, where we had a most eventful day. Why are the Government and Minister spoiling elections and trying to keep people from getting involved in the political system? Now they want to go with electronic voting. In America, they are talking about sending people to Mars, yet in the last presidential election, they were not even fit to run their own affairs. The President of America, George W. Bush, was not legally elected; it was Mr. Gore who challenged him. Mr. Bush won the presidential election because of a mess-up in Florida regarding electronic voting. There were major question marks regarding the result. While the matter went to the courts, it could have gone further. Mr. Gore put the American people first rather than embarrass them throughout the world for the fact that they could not even run the election.

I am totally opposed to electronic voting. It destroys elections because the day of the count was always a great day in Irish political life. Why is the Government taking away Irish culture? Does it think this is such a sophisticated country? It is not. Electronic voting is dangerous and evil and I am worried about it. Every Member of the Oireachtas gets e-mails from officials of the House every day telling him or her not to open e-mails because they will bring down the system. What will stop some gangster or some guy in a university, as in America, bringing down the whole system? Some guy could programme a computer to ensure the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, or Deputies Allen or McGinley are elected in every constituency. These guys will control electronic voting and they will make a mess of the election campaign. I do not care what assurances officials give because they do not have to stand for election and can do what they like.

It is wrong that the Government is going down this road. Somebody will have to challenge this — I will not do so because I have enough challenges with which to deal — because it is not right and it is being forced through by stealth. I compliment our spokesman, Deputy Allen, who has consistently raised this issue over the past few months and now people are beginning to realise it is being forced on them. The questions we asked have not been answered. If we go down the road of electronic voting, there will be serious problems in the future. Twenty or 30 years ago, people said there were problems in Dublin City Council and they were castigated in this House and in the council but we now have tribunals. If electronic voting goes ahead, at some point in the future somebody will interfere with it and will determine who will be on both sides of the House. It is dangerous and it is a road down which we should not go.

Even if we do not go down that road, why is the Government trying to get people away from the political system? Polling day has been destroyed by not letting people canvass near polling booths. With electronic voting, the count will be over in an hour. At least people became involved and interested in the political process. They wanted to know who would and who would not be elected, how people had got on and what happened in their own area in respect of the ballot boxes. Electronic voting interferes with the political process about which the Government has been concerned in recent months.

I am worried about electronic voting and about these guys who can interfere with it. I read in the Irish Independent this week about guys who are able to interfere with people's bank accounts. The banks themselves were able to take money out of people's accounts, although it was by accident. That is what will happen with electronic voting. The paper trail will not be there so it should not go ahead.

This should not have been pushed through by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, who is the most arrogant Minister who has ever sat opposite. He is too arrogant and too smart and he will get himself into a lot of trouble because he thinks he can bully, push and shove people into corners. Electronic voting will come back to haunt the Government because some whizz-kid will interfere with it. The Minister of State and his party should have the courage to say they will not bring it in for the local and European Parliament elections because there are too many dangers and risks and that it is best to wait and see. Electronic voting took place in five or six constituencies at the general election. Maybe that should be doubled and it should take place in nine or ten constituencies to see how it works.

What happened to Nora Owen in her Dublin constituency on the night of the last general election was one of the cruellest things that ever happened in Irish political life. An official, who did not have to stand for election, called out the result and the woman who served this country and in public office nearly collapsed. It was outrageous and it is something I hope will never happen again in political life. Whatever way electronic voting comes in, I hope there will be a way to stage-manage it. It was outrageous what happened that night and it is not the way electronic voting should work. We have already taken a number of people who are not involved in the political process out of political life. The Minister of State should do something to ensure that never happens again.

As long as I live, I will never forget what happened to Nora Owen. It took her a long time to get over that. The problem was not that she was defeated in that we all put our names on the ballot paper and we know there will be good days and bad days. In public life, I suppose we do not know when to get out and to do so before we are beaten. At the same time, there must be a system in place so that this never happens again.

The Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned about electronic voting as are the political parties. It should not be rushed and people should not be forced into it. I have been unhappy about it for a long time. I want Deputy Allen, our spokesman on the environment, to make sure this campaign is livened up and that we keep opposing this until we get answers from the Department and reassurances that it will work. It will be no good finding out in ten years' time that somebody was defaulted from becoming a Member of this House because some guy fiddled the electronic voting, and I am not talking about somebody from a political party. There are whizz-kids who like breaking into these types of systems and I am concerned about that.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies who contributed to the debate on the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003. As I said at the outset, this is a short Bill to implement the Constituencies Commission Report 2003 and to give effect to the European Union's Council decision of June and September 2002.

I wish to focus on the Bill and to thank Deputies from all sides for their general welcome for it. While it does not refer to electronic voting, it comes as no surprise that that should exercise the minds of so many Deputies in the debate on a Bill which appears to be non-contentious. I do not believe the House has a difficulty with the Bill as it stands.

Lest I do not have time at the conclusion of the debate, I take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks of Deputy McCormack on the outgoing Members of the European Parliament who will not seek re-election. I know each one and admire the work they do. Having experienced politics at home and in Europe, we have, generally speaking, worked as a team and have all worn the Irish jersey in Europe. I mention my former colleague, Joe McCartin, to whom Deputy McCormack referred. Liam Hyland, Jim Fitzsimons and Nuala Ahern from Leinster, John Cushnahan from Munster and Niall Andrews and Mary Banotti from Dublin are not seeking re-election. Whatever they decide to do in the future, I think I speak on behalf of the House when I wish them well post-June 2004.

Deputy Allen, Deputy Morgan and other Deputies referred to the Zerflow security assessment report. Much misunderstanding was created by the presentation on television of the report. The misunderstanding arose from a lack of understanding of the context and content of the report. The report was commissioned by my Department in February 2002, four months before the use of voting machines, as a risk assessment of the use of voting machines in polling stations. It did not cover the integrity of the EMS, which was covered in other reports, but the possible physical threats in a polling station. The recommendations were considered by the Department before the voting machines were used in May 2002 and those considered directly relevant were incorporated in the instructions issued to the returning officers. The conditions covered by the major recommendations could only arise in circumstances of a widespread conspiracy between the returning officer's staff, polling station staff and external parties.

The Zerflow recommendations were further considered in the modifications made to the voting machines following experience gained during pilot uses in 2002. Zerflow has indicated that any concerns it may have had about the use of the voting machines in polling stations no longer apply.

Deputies Allen, Gilmore and others raised the question of the use of electronic voting and counting systems at the June polls. As this matter was discussed in detail on three occasions before Christmas by the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, it is not necessary to repeat the discussion, particularly given the time constraints on this debate. I emphasise, however, that the new system is safe for use and more secure than the current manual system. Some members of the media need to review critically the claims of those opposing use of the system.

At the joint committee the Minister arranged for six experts to provide assistance to its members. We have to balance the knowledge and experience of these experts, gained over many years' involvement in electoral work, with that of people with little or no knowledge of conducting elections.

As Deputies will be aware, the Minister will launch a major public awareness campaign tomorrow to inform the public.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister of State answer a question?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As regards the 40 questions put to——

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will address that matter. I was present for most of the debate. As personal computers will not be connected to a network or the Internet during elections, hacking will not be possible.

I will briefly address the circumstances which arose in north County Dublin with regard to former Deputy Nora Owen. No one can condone what happened at that count, which was unfortunate and a costly lesson for the former Deputy and her family. We have learned from it and the process will be much more humane on the next occasion when results will be announced after each count.

Deputies Allen and McCormack referred to a questionnaire circulated at a joint committee meeting. The document contained much more than 40 questions. Replies are being prepared and will be forwarded to the Deputies as soon as possible.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is akin to closing the door when the horse has bolted.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Opposition Deputies stated that electronic voting would be rolled out nationwide as if we had no experience of the process. We are not starting from a greenfield position. We have gathered experience from three constituencies in the 2002 general election and seven constituencies during the second Nice treaty referendum when the system worked extremely well. It is not, therefore, being rolled out for the first time. These were the feasibility studies Deputies demanded.

As regards Deputies' concerns about the effects of the system on the electorate, notably the elderly, no problems were encountered inthe two Dublin constituencies, the Meath constituency and the seven constituencies in which the system operated in the Nice treaty referendum. To suggest that people will have a problem with electronic voting is almost an insult to the electorate. It is capable of using the system.

Deputies will have an opportunity to see at first hand how the system operates. Having seen the system, I do not believe anyone could make a mistake. If someone decides to change his or her mind——

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister of State yield for a question?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is he indicating that his officials are not yet in a position to answer the 40 questions put to them long before Christmas? Will the electronic voting system be launched tomorrow without having answers to questions posed by the experts?

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe the Deputy will be more than happy with the answers he receives to the questions. The House has just recently returned following the Christmas period. The officials have been working on the questions and the replies will issue to Deputies.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They must be difficult.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The officials dealing with the questions have a considerable workload apart from electronic voting. I assure Deputy Allen that the answers will issue to him as soon as possible. We will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to address issues relevant to the Bill.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The questions are relevant.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are relevant to the old system but not to the Bill. If the Deputy bears with me, we can address issues such as the implications of the Kelly judgment for the forthcoming European elections, to which Deputy Gilmore referred. Deputies will recall that the judgment found that two elementsof paragraph 2 of the Schedule were unconstitutional. The judgment will apply to expenditure by candidates at the June elections. While legislation is not necessary to give effect to the judgment, the Standards in Public Office Commission will issue guidelines to deal with it. I am certain that access to resources from public funds will have to be taken into consideration in the spending limits.

On the question of the dual mandate for the European Parliament, which was raised by a number of Deputies, a derogation was given to the United Kingdom to deal with the position in Northern Ireland and to Ireland until 2009. This will mean that from that year onwards anyone who holds an Oireachtas seat and is elected to the European Parliament will have to forfeit one of his or her seats immediately. The derogation is limited to two or three years, depending on the date of the election, when the full ending of the dual mandate between Members of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament will apply.

We are confident we will be able to extend electronic voting. While no one can be sure of or can second-guess what the courts may decide, we believe the section will withstand any legal challenge and will not require primary legislation.

I have read the Comptroller and Auditor General's letter and Deputy Gilmore's press release. The Comptroller and Auditor General was correct to state the system should be tested, which is exactly what has been happening in recent years. The debate on electronic voting did not start tonight, last week or last year, but has been ongoing for several years.

Deputy Gilmore raised the issue of opposition to the electronic voting system. Why did this level of opposition not arise during the debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2001? I remind Opposition Deputies that former Deputy Dukes as well as Deputy Olivia Mitchell and Senator Bradford have expressed support for electronic voting. If we were in the position that we did not have the experience gathered in three constituencies in the previous general election and seven constituencies in the Nice treaty referendum, legitimate questions could be raised about the system.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are all in favour of the system in principle but it was introduced——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Order, please.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was introduced in 2002.

Bernard Allen (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The machines to be used differ from those used in 2002.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are electronic voting machines. With regard to Deputy Ring's reference to the presidential election in Florida, punch cards dating from the 1960s were used, not electronic voting.

Deputy Harkin referred to the recommendations of the constituency commission on Dáil constituencies. This is not a matter for tonight's debate but can be discussed when the necessary Bill to revise Dáil constituencies is presented to the House in due course. I hope we can tease out other matters which may arise on Committee Stage.